2208 research outputs found
Sort by
They Told Me He Said He Would Kill Me. Why Hearsay Should Get Full Weight in Asylum Proceedings
Get PDFPhantom Parties and Other Practical Problems with the Attempted Abolition of Joint and Several Liability
No full textIn recent years, the allocation of responsibility to multiple tortfeasors and corresponding limitations on joint and several liability have been mired with uncertainty and change. This article describes the various forms of tort reform legislation limiting joint and several liability, explaining that some states limit joint and several liability according to the proportionality of the plaintiff\u27s comparative fault, explaining that there is no clear majority approach to joint and several liability legislation and its interpretation by the courts, that a number of states have resisted the trend toward modifying joint and several liability, and that no state has enacted legislation completely abolishing joint and several liability for all tort claims.
In addition to revealing that no state has abolished joint and several liability entirely, this article further illustrates that the underlying policy objectives of those seeking to abolish joint and several liability have not been effectuated either. The modern changes to joint and several liability have sparked polarized policy debates between two groups. One group believes that the abolition of joint and several liability is necessary to prevent joint tortfeasors from disproportionately paying damages which were also caused by other defendants (or to prevent plaintiffs from strategically targeting deep pocketed defendants). A second group believes joint and several liability should be preserved to ensure full damage recovery for tort victims and prevent tort victims from having to bear the burden of damages done to them.
This article looks beyond the usual policy debates surrounding joint and several liability abolition legislation, examining more closely the practical problems courts have confronted while interpreting and implementing such legislation. I conclude that the policy interests of neither side of the debate have been served by such abolition attempts, which have created more problems than solved.
In particular, I contend that legislative attempts to abolish joint and several liability have perpetuated and worsened the problem of unfair and inaccurate damage assessments that the legislation was intended to remedy. Both pure and modified proportional fault allocation systems intended to replace joint and several liability have created complex and daunting obstacles for courts and litigants. Such hurdles include phantom party problems, conflicts of law, inaccurate allocation of damages, and substantial inequities which harm both plaintiffs and defendants. I propose a reinstatement of pure joint and several liability with contribution as the most equitable, viable, and practical approach to multiple tortfeasor damage allocation
Who Are Those Guys? : The Results of a Survey Studying the Information Literacy of Incoming Law Students
Get PDF
Drug Testing of Students: A Legal and Public Health Perspective
Get PDFThis article seeks to address the efficacy of school drug-testing programs. After providing some general background information on the abuse of substances, the article sets forth the Supreme Court decisions on student drug testing. Part III then discusses the extension of the jurisprudence in the state courts to show how the Supreme Court law is being expanded by the states, and is likely to be further expanded in the future. The next section, Part IV, turns to drug screening from a public health perspective, analyzing whether or not drug screening is a valid public health screen. Finally, Part V examines whether student drug testing serves as a deterrent, whether the programs cause any inadvertent harm, and the nature of future research that should be undertaken to determine the value of drug testing in public schools
Reforming FDA Policy for Pediatric Testing: Challenges and Changes in the Wake of Studies Using Antidepressant Drugs
Get PDFThe Orthodoxy of Format: Some Sketches on Legal Scholarship
Get PDFThe idea that legal scholarship should include visual elements is not a new one. Early student work blazed a trail some thirty years ago. More recent contributions have been produced by scholars such as Keith Aoki. And, in 2006, the Center for the Study of the Public Domain at Duke University published a comic book addressing copyright law and the fair use doctrine.
Despite these efforts, there does not appear to be any systematic attempt to use graphic art in legal scholarship. This project makes such an appeal. It challenges the conventional format for legal scholarship that has been used for over 150 years and offers an alternative approach. Our project is interdisciplinary in nature and incorporates numerous fields of study. It is influenced by the work of Susan Sontag, Umberto Eco, Marshall McLuhan as well as Derek Bell and Richard Delgado. Our project is also informed by the work of Art Spiegelman and Osamu Tezuka.
From the photographs of abuse at Abu Ghraib to the cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed, graphic art can be compelling and descriptive. It can also provide an extraordinary opportunity for discourse across a wide range of issues. Its imagery is not limited by language and is, therefore, more accessible and less likely to be lost in translation. And yet, this format has not been fully explored in legal scholarship. In light of recent challenges to the continuing relevance of the law review, legal scholars would do well to explore new formats for presenting their work. Indeed, the growing popularity of Internet blogs on legal topics suggests that the movement away from orthodoxy is already in progress. As this Postscript reveals, graphic art cannot replace text. But it can offer scholars a different format for addressing legal issues. We hope this project encourages others to challenge the orthodoxy of format that infuses all legal scholarship
Martha Graham, Professor Miller and the Work for HIre Doctrine
Get PDFThe current work for hire doctrine, as embodied by 17 U.S.C. Sections 101 and 201 and interpreted by the judiciary, provides a default rule of copyright ownership in favor of employers where a work is created by an employee in the scope of employment. In the absence of a written agreement, a finding that an engagement is a work for hire under the statute automatically results in all ownership being vested in the employer. This result often contradicts business norms and the understanding of one or both of the parties. In this Article, I advocate abolishing the all-or-nothing concept of ownership in favor of a more particularized analysis that emphasizes the expectations of the parties. This would involve first reversing the current, pro-employer statutory presumption and then analyzing whether, and to what extent, the employer may have a license to the wor
